brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Word Filter for Chat
The LMB Wiki created a word filter which will block certain swear words, or other words that it is told to block. I think that Brickipedia should import the filter. It gives users the option of viewing the blocked words, instead of forcing them to read it without the filter. It's capable of blocking three different levels of words: Red X: Swear Words Orange X: Bad Words Yellow X: Unneeded words commonly used for spamming or trolling It is completely customizable, you can delete or add as much as you want, for example, the LMB Wiki doesn't even use the orange level right now. Here are some reasons I think it would be good: # Respect for the community - many users here hate swearing and such, it will make it so they don't have to deal with it. # It's optional - It gives users who want to see what the word is the ability to, with just a tiny bit of effort as small as moving the mouse. # Nothing will change - The Chat Moderators will do the exact same thing, the only difference is that the community doesn't have to know why warnings are given. # It helps when ChatMods aren't on - If a Chat Moderator isn't on, and a user just starts swearing because he can and no one can do anything about it, then it will block it. There are many more reasons, but as I said, Brickipedia can make it block anything they want, and it's completely optional for users. They can choose to read the words by simply hovering over the icon which shows that the word was blocked. There's really no reason not to do it. IMPORTANT EDIT: The words WILL be changed by the admin who imports it. They will not be the same, and you will not get banned for saying darn! Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) 20:43, January 16, 2012 (UTC) (forgot my sig :P) Support *'Support' 20:46, January 16, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' 20:53, January 16, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' *'Support' 21:14, January 16, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' Don't see why not. -[[User:King of Nynrah|'King of Nynrah']] [[User talk:King of Nynrah|'Talk']] 21:17, January 16, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' Although, wouldn't that mean we just will have things like "S T U P I D" (note the spaces) to get around the filter? Also, I think we should customise it remove "idiot", but it's definitely a good idea, and if it's already available, then that's a big plus too 21:47, January 16, 2012 (UTC) **Yes, you can do that, and it gets through. You've been talking to Zero, haven't you? :P I would just give you the basics, and whoever I give it to would add all the rest of the words. Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) * Support 23:11, January 16, 2012 (UTC) *'Extremely Strong Support' - This is a LEGO site, right? Inappropriate language doesn't belong here. At least this kinda blocks inappropriate language, which is the most that can be done with the chat, as Wikia seems to have abandoned chat... **This is Wikia, Anyone can sign up, Anyone can swear. Free Speech. Many users here WILL swear, But it's their choice. -- 04:47, January 17, 2012 (UTC) ***Free speech means that the government can't censor speech. ****With free speech there are boundaries and responsibilities. In order to have order, there must be boundaries. So let me give a quick analogy. US and Mexico border. What would happen if we didn't have that border? Well, people from Mexico would be flocking into the US, and there is no order there. But we have a border. There is order. Boundaries create order. Another analogy. Just because I have "free speech" does that mean I can be racist to someone on the street and say: "I have free speech." Nope. It doesn't work that way. 04:53, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' Free speech does not work that way. Also, it's optional. Per-user. Don't want it? Then turn it off, it's not hard. Seriously, what's the big deal? Jamesster.LEGO (talk) 05:01, 1/17/2012 05:01, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' I suppose my vote counts, too. :P As Mythrun said, the government can't control what people say, it's completely legal for websites to control what is spoken on their own website. Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) *'Support' I love the idea! Da Devil *'Support', giving users the option to view them thus supports free speech while giving us a way to make sure that chat stays age-friendly. 17:36, January 17, 2012 (UTC) :* Everyone here is supposed to be 13 or over... ::* My point exactly. FB100Z • talk • 18:33, January 17, 2012 (UTC) :::*I would consider swearing something that 13-15 year olds won't necessarily want to hear, though there are exceptions. 18:44, January 17, 2012 (UTC) ::::* There are people of all ages that don't like swearing, and it's good to have respect for them, even though they're over 13. Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) *'Support' [[User:Agent Charge|'Charge']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'talk']] Go Briki! 19:02, January 25, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' --LUModder LUBeta Tester (I will make sig later) *'Support' ▂▃▅▆▇█▓▒░Eagleeyedan▒░▓█▇▆▅▃▂ *'Support' Since we can choose it or not. -- 00:49, February 7, 2012 (UTC) Oppose *'Strong Oppose' LMB are the rain to our parade, so no thank you. --From the desk of Br1ck an1mator 16:55, January 17, 2012 (UTC) **I got banned there for saying hell. >_> -- 01:54, January 19, 2012 (UTC) ***If you do get banned for that, then please leave me a message and I'll unban you if that really was the reason. We're not that strict with those kind of words, we only ban if they're being spammed. But that really doesn't have anything to do with this because it'll have different ChatMods and different words. Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) *'oppose' maybe not so much for the swears but defiantly not for the "bad" words, on the LMB wiki hell and idiot are considered bad words and as a strong believer of freedom of speech I think this would be oppressive not supportive for our community [[User:Prisinorzero|'Prisinor']][[User_talk:Prisinorzero|'zero']] 21:09, January 16, 2012 (UTC) **Brickipedia would no be importing the words, just the filter, and they would completely insert all their own words. Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) *'Strong oppose' - We need a fricking censorship policy first, peoples. Second, this is totally against the wiki philosophy of free speech and neutrality. We'll have people with differing ideas on what constitutes offensive content, and users will get warned or banned for purely objective reasons. Objectivity is not for policies. Another thing; due to the way the emoticon system works, you can easily view the "swear word" (which, on LMBW, can mean something as harmless as "crap" or "hell") by hovering over it with your mouse cursor. Way to censor. FB100Z • talk • 04:05, January 17, 2012 (UTC) ** Okay, it was good to get that out of my system :D Now that I've calmed down, I'll explain a more logical and less philosophical problem with this. Why do we want to censor content if people can see it anyway? Isn't that completely against what censorship is? FB100Z • talk • 04:12, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *** But some people don't to see the swear words. 04:17, January 17, 2012 (UTC) **** Then they politely ask the offending user to stop. The offending user stops. (If he doesn't, we have a troll on our hands.) FB100Z • talk • 21:15, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *'Strong oppose' This shmacks of shenshorship. * strong oppose per above--Brick bobby 20:15, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *'Weak Oppose' Just for now. -- 22:38, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *'Weak oppose' People are always gonna look at the words anyways, no use in putting it up then. P.S.- Aren't we supposed to all be teens anyways? We should be able to handle these words. -_- --Lord Shu 23:01, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *''' Extremely Strong Oppose''' I don't ever curse on the internet but what happened to free speech!?! We need to have chatmods from different time zones so that when one isn't on another is. If a user is being bad then he/she must be blocked. If a user is offended with chat or does not lke it. Than he/she doesn't have to come on. 04:38, January 17, 2012 (UTC) **This sums it up.-- 04:45, January 17, 2012 (UTC) Neutral *'Weak Neutral' - Great points from both sides. 04:53, January 17, 2012 (UTC) **Yes, it's not even a hack, you just have to misspell it or something and it doesn't catch it. It's very basic, but it does a good job. :) Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) ***It's technically still a hack. :P And this filter actually exists? I heard rumors of another wiki having this (or had it)... :S 03:58, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *''' Nice idea Sir''' but it won't work, Per both sides. -- 03:23, January 17, 2012 (UTC) **^ meh... was going to write a big long thing against the first point, can't be bothered now :D In response to the second section, the way I see it, if people don't want to see it, they don't have to, if they do want to know, they can, it just gives them the option 04:21, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *** Basically, per Jag above (had an editconflict) 04:22, January 17, 2012 (UTC) ** By the way, isn't everyone on chat over 13? (I hope...) And won't this encourage trolls, and discourage well-meaning users (who will get slapped in the face for saying "damn")? FB100Z • talk • 04:25, January 17, 2012 (UTC) *** Also, we need to discuss what will define a "bad word" that is worth the censor. 04:31, January 17, 2012 (UTC) * Neutral for now, though I may change my opinion later. 21:35, January 17, 2012 (UTC) Comments * Comment - Free speech has never been absolute here nor anywhere, so that is not really relevant. I'm not saying I am anti-swearing or pro-swearing, but if you made an page with lots of swear words, it would be deleted. A real lack of free speech would be if I blocked or banned someone for criticizing me (And that would mean a much larger list of people banned from chat :L). Other than that, currently I really don't want to get involved in this discussion and have people moan at me about things like freedom of speech or what is considered a bad word or any of that stuff. - CJC 17:30, January 17, 2012 (UTC) * Comment 2.0 - Still not wanting to get involved, but each culture, religion, upbringing and individual consider different words differently. I'm sure we all consider a few words as swears, but other words are more vague.... - CJC 17:46, January 17, 2012 (UTC) * I'm also working on things for the main space, but it's much more difficult, so I haven't been able to yet. But that's not really a reason to not have it in chat... Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) Arbitrary section break Wall of text - This is my main concern. Isn't censoring the mainspace a much higher priority? A significant portion of our non-editor readers are 13-, but there are no underage users in chat (I hope). Here are some more cons: # We have no current policies for censorship, only UCS. Obviously, if someone edits a widely-used template and inserts an offensive word in really big letters, that wouldn't be using common sense. But if someone is very upset with a proposal and swears a little out of frustration, that's a more grey area. #: And here is the problem with UCS itself: different people have different ideas of what common sense is. Wikipedia's IAR doesn't rely on common sense, it relies on the idea of improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. # This idea gives the illusion of objectivity to policies, thus breaching UCS. For example, a newbie might think it's okay for him to discuss offensive topics without using any offensive language, or that any appearance of a red X automatically indicates rulebreaking (on QWERTY keyboards, it's not hard to miss the O in "shot"). #: Also, think use-mention distinction. The parenthesized statement implies an offensive term, but am I using it in a disruptive or trollish way? Of course not. Objective censorship and UCS don't like each other. # Trolls will get a kick out of making little red X's appear. I would if I were a troll. # Trolls would also get a kick out of trying to bypass the little red X's. I would if I were a troll. Kids under 13 are not allowed in chat. Why try to make it safe for them if we have all these disadvantages? Why aren't we making the mainspace safer instead? FB100Z • talk • 18:33, January 17, 2012 (UTC) :They might not be allowed in chat, but it's pretty easy for them to get in chat. Of course, that's there fault, but I just wanted to reply to you're retorical question. 19:52, January 17, 2012 (UTC) ::We're introducing all these issues so we can protect people who violate Wikia's ToS? FB100Z • talk • 20:07, January 17, 2012 (UTC) :::I said that it was their fault. Also, I just wanted to answer a retorical question :p 20:09, January 17, 2012 (UTC) ::::Turns out, a tree that falls in the woods with nobody around does make a sound! FB100Z • talk • 20:13, January 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::Cool! What's the sound of one hand clapping? 21:16, January 17, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I hear it sounds like John Cage's 4:33. Unless you clap at Mach 2. Then it sounds different. FB100Z • talk • 22:32, January 17, 2012 (UTC) Who will import it? Before this forum is closed, who will import the filter if it is decided to use it? Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) :One of us (admins)(I assume)(why does it matter?)(and why am I using so many brackets?). ::Yeah, it has to be an (admin)(I was wondering which admin it would be)(:P)(Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs)) :We haven't quite reached a consensus yet, if I have it correctly. We have 12 supporters versus 8 opposers; both have pretty strong points. 20:07, January 26, 2012 (UTC) What counts as a censor? ^^^ -- 08:44, January 28, 2012 (UTC) *If you mean what censor it, then it's an image. If you mean what's censored, then that's up to the admin. Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) **Admins don't own the wiki. What if a user disagrees with their decision? FB100Z • talk • 22:55, February 2, 2012 (UTC) ***Death penalty. Capital punishment. 22:58, February 2, 2012 (UTC) ****If that happens, the People's Republic of Normal Brickipedia Users will drain the moat outside of the cabal's castle out of revenge. 02:39, February 3, 2012 (UTC) *****Errm. Should we make a "list" :P ******No, it's fine for an admin to do because it always optional whether you can view the word or not. :) Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) *******That made absolutely no sense. Maybe I'm an idiot :/ 18:22, February 3, 2012 (UTC) ********If we do have a word filter can we keep it at just swear words, otherwise there will be some debate as it depends on the context. Also even some swear words depend on the context. Anyway some people are going to have to use the words to decide which ones are censored --Brick bobby 07:47, February 4, 2012 (UTC) *********My plan was to just have swear words. For the words the some people think are swear words, and some people don't, there will be an orange X instead of a red X. And don't worry, the swear words that people don't agree on definitely won't go as far as "fart" and that kind of stuff. :P Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) **********I don't want words like crap and hell getting the orange tick, Crap simply means bad work or poop. -- 02:14, February 8, 2012 (UTC) **********I wasn't planning on putting those on, but if you don't want them, then you'd have to notify the admin... Drewlzoo(talk) (blogs) * If this gets implemented (I hope it doesn't), red X's should be the only level. No orange or yellow or any of that weird controversial stuff (since when do we need to hide the word "idiot" from 13+?). And let's not make the red X's part of policy, only courtesy. No crap about "if you produce a red X, you will be banned for 16.8 days." 02:36, February 8, 2012 (UTC) ---------- closed (by request) with decision to implement on some level Although I've voted, I really am not worried about this as I never use chat, so feel I can look at this objectively. Obvously the word list is still to be decided, but I really can't see what the harm is in censoring some of the "higher-level" words. As far as the "freedom of speech" argument goes, it's no different to beeping out swearing on the news on tv, and if you want to see what the word is, you have that option. I would recommend that admins involved with the chat feature to work on a list "off-wiki". I don't think we really want our wiki to be at the top of a list of search results when they're typed into google (although i'm not sure that they'll have to go in a js file anyway) 03:02, February 8, 2012 (UTC)